Premium
Legal concerns trigger prostate‐specific antigen testing
Author(s) -
Steurer Johan,
Held Ulrike,
Schmidt Mathias,
Gigerenzer Gerd,
Tag Brigitte,
Bachmann Lucas M.
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
journal of evaluation in clinical practice
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.737
H-Index - 73
eISSN - 1365-2753
pISSN - 1356-1294
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.01024.x
Subject(s) - overdiagnosis , medicine , family medicine , defensive medicine , test (biology) , malpractice , prostate specific antigen , continuing medical education , continuing education , prostate , medical education , medical malpractice , paleontology , cancer , political science , law , biology
Background In the United States, lawsuits against physicians have had an impact on their behaviour, resulting in overdiagnosis and other forms of ‘defensive medicine’. Does a similar situation exist in Switzerland? Using prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) screening as an example, we surveyed Swiss physicians and assessed the extent to which liability fears influenced their recommendation for testing. Methods At a continuing medical education conference we distributed a pilot‐tested questionnaire to 552 participants. Two hundred and fifty of them (45%) completed the questionnaire. Results Of the participants, 158 (68%) were general practitioners and 73 (32%) specialists in internal medicine. Seventy‐five per cent of both groups recommend regular PSA screening to men older than age 50. Yet only 56% of the general physicians and 53% of the internists believe that PSA measurement is an effective screening method. A substantial proportion of the physicians – 41% of general practitioners and 43% of internists – reported that they sometimes or often recommend this test for legal reasons. Conclusions Defensive medicine is not a phenomenon particular to the USA, but is also observable in Switzerland. This result is surprising, given that in Switzerland and other European countries, a physician who does not recommend a test or treatment whose effectiveness is controversial need not fear litigation.